Since I could not figure out how to comment on the original entry, I will try here at the risk of seeming to not appreciate the humor.

To say that he is going to be the umpire answers no questions. The question is whether he is going to apply the Sirica Rules or the Living Constitution. In other words, what is the strike zone. It is encouraging to hear that he is going to judge cases rather than causes, something that seemed to escape Judge Bork during his hearings.

Actually, I think a better analogy is to compare Roberts'/Rove's strategy to the rope a dope. It's a bad time to be an endangered species or someone who believes in the modern concept of nationally recognized civil liberties.

It's never been a good time to be an endangered species, but the Endangered Species Act does not appear to help such species. If I found an endangered species on my land, what incentive does the law give me to tell anybody? What incentive does the law give me to look? Laws which punish people who have done nothing wrong other than have the poor luck to have an endangered species on their property are badly written, and need drastic reform. Go reform them, and discover how many conservatives you can please. Conservation and conservative have the same root words for a reason.

As for the modern concept of nationally recognized civil liberties, it appears most in danger from the modern concept of large government as the solution to all our problems, rather than the conservative concept of limited government.

I guess Jim Rhoads has rather clearly shown the main defenct in the concept of being "just the umpire."

I see the danger to civil liberties coming from one main place:the Bush Administration as upheld by various Supreme Court hopefuls. We have learned all too well the past two weeks that we need an adequately funded and effective government to perform public functions. Too bad your ilk is just trying to starve government, not trying to make it better. Except, of course, in Iraq.

I know a lot about baseball, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I do know that if it were not for the Supreme Court blacks and whites could well still be going to separate schools and women would still be dying from illegal abortions. Congress was not solving these problems.

Not to get too far off the topic, but the argument that women would still be dying from illegal abortions absent Roe is specious: you could just as easily say that prostitutes are dying from diseases because prostitution is illegal outside Nevada and drives them toward unsafe behavior, and they would live if only the Supreme Court would recognize a constitutional right to sex for pay. Similarly, you could say that drug addicts are dying because of AIDS from re-used hypos, and they would live but for a constitutional right to a needle exchange.

There may be good reasons for legalized abortion, but the argument that people will violate the law in dangerous ways in the absence of a constitutional right to engage in the same activity safely is not very persuasive. Nor (more to the point) is the argument that it is the role of a *judge* to reshape constitutional law in ways that will maximize good behavior and minimize the consequences for people who refuse to follow the law.

There are things people should be able to do without breaking the law. That is the right of privacy. I believe that the approach of constitutional intepretation used in Griswold and Roe is the most appropriate for a society that values individual freedom. Roberts says he believes this. Rehnquist did not. We shall see. I am not hopeful.